[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Free Art License

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

> It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on 
> where recipients can access the original artwork.
> (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
> The freeness of this is arguable.  I think it's supposed to be primarily a 
> form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  
> However, it may be overbroad.  Convince me.  Perhaps keeping track of the 
> movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is* 
> unreasonable.

Especially since it could be stolen.  On the other hand, it is important
for a free piece of physical artwork that it be publically accessible;
the one who has power over the license (the Louvre, I guess) would also
have to make sure that, when it is sold, it will not end up in a private

>> - The Original (the work's source or resource) :
>> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
>> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
>> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
> (Incidentally, I have no idea what "of its partition" means here.  "Its 
> program" seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.)

I've seen "partition" used in a cover text of a music CD, it seems to
refer to the score of music for the orchestra.  It might be a
false-friend like translation, in german a music score for many
instruments is called "partitur".

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Reply to: